Last Weekend's 'Click'

Telly tech
Chris Long looks at the new TV technologies showcased at CES:
http://www.bbcworldnews.com/Pages/Pr...FeatureID=1019

"""So now we have Ultra HD, which provides a phenomenal 7,680 pixels
by 4,320. At the moment it is only available on enormous screens, but
it will eventually reach our televisions."""

Jeez, WTF's the point when they haven't got the bandwidth for SD, let
alone HD or UHD? Please, please, can we not just have uncompressed SD
for DTT?

Also, it seems that TV manufacturers' are still some 30 behind the
science of vision - Bruce Walker, Toshiba: "Because the human eye
and brain has something called persistence of vision, you can still
sometimes perceive a little lack of clarity in the image at 120 frames
a second."

THE MYTH OF PERSISTENCE OF VISION REVISITED:
http://www.uca.edu/org/ccsmi/ccsmi/c...0Revisited.htm

"""Several years ago we wrote an article entitled "The Myth of
Persistence of Vision" which appeared in the Journal of the University
Film Association in the fall of 1978 (Anderson and Fisher). """

Still, at least Chris Long managed to avoid the notorious and
hilarious gaff of Tomorrow's World in the 1980s:

"""The Japanese have already got a quite different hi-definition
system that's got 1125 lines. Now, as you can see, the pictures on
there are quite superb!"""

It's not quoted in the written article, but he did say something about
the difficulty of demo-ing modern TV technology when we the viewers
are only going to see the result on our existing TV sets! Well done,
lad!

The programme was quite good this week ...
http://www.bbcworldnews.com/Pages/Pr...ure.aspx?id=18

"""So now we have Ultra HD, which provides a phenomenal 7,680 pixels
by 4,320. At the moment it is only available on enormous screens, but
it will eventually reach our televisions."""

I can remembe seeing a £12,000 widescreen TV in Dixon's in Marble Arch
(London) on display and being marvelled by it. Thankfully, better and
cheaper is the order of the day now.


Jeez, WTF's the point when they haven't got the bandwidth for SD, let
alone HD or UHD? *Please, please, can we not just have uncompressed SD
for DTT?

Would that be called analogue? The main selling point of digital is
that it can be compressed to provide more space for channels.


Also, it seems that TV manufacturers' are still some 30 behind the
science of vision

Thirty what? Frogs? Big Macs? Eggs?


- *Bruce Walker, Toshiba: "Because the human eye
and brain has something called persistence of vision, you can still
sometimes perceive a little lack of clarity in the image at 120 frames
a second."

Persistence of vision seems to work fine in the cinema with 24 frames
per second only.



Still, at least Chris Long managed to avoid the notorious and
hilarious gaff of Tomorrow's World in the 1980s:

"""The Japanese have already got a quite different hi-definition
system that's got 1125 lines. *Now, as you can see, the pictures on
there are quite superb!"""

How is that a gaffe?

John

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
Telly tech
Chris Long looks at the new TV technologies showcased at CES:
http://www.bbcworldnews.com/Pages/Pr...FeatureID=1019

"""So now we have Ultra HD, which provides a phenomenal 7,680 pixels
by 4,320. At the moment it is only available on enormous screens, but
it will eventually reach our televisions."""

Jeez, WTF's the point when they haven't got the bandwidth for SD, let
alone HD or UHD? Please, please, can we not just have uncompressed SD
for DTT?





for broadcast you're talking 20 years away for the uk at least - you can't
imagine how we will receive broadcasts by then or what we will be watching
them on.




--
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....

Tongue in cheek mode on...
Well I can solve the traffic congestion and the bandwidth problem in one go.
Remove everyone's eyes.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
Telly tech
Chris Long looks at the new TV technologies showcased at CES:
http://www.bbcworldnews.com/Pages/Pr...FeatureID=1019

"""So now we have Ultra HD, which provides a phenomenal 7,680 pixels
by 4,320. At the moment it is only available on enormous screens, but
it will eventually reach our televisions."""

Jeez, WTF's the point when they haven't got the bandwidth for SD, let
alone HD or UHD? Please, please, can we not just have uncompressed SD
for DTT?

Also, it seems that TV manufacturers' are still some 30 behind the
science of vision - Bruce Walker, Toshiba: "Because the human eye
and brain has something called persistence of vision, you can still
sometimes perceive a little lack of clarity in the image at 120 frames
a second."

THE MYTH OF PERSISTENCE OF VISION REVISITED:
http://www.uca.edu/org/ccsmi/ccsmi/c...0Revisited.htm

"""Several years ago we wrote an article entitled "The Myth of
Persistence of Vision" which appeared in the Journal of the University
Film Association in the fall of 1978 (Anderson and Fisher). """

Still, at least Chris Long managed to avoid the notorious and
hilarious gaff of Tomorrow's World in the 1980s:

"""The Japanese have already got a quite different hi-definition
system that's got 1125 lines. Now, as you can see, the pictures on
there are quite superb!"""

It's not quoted in the written article, but he did say something about
the difficulty of demo-ing modern TV technology when we the viewers
are only going to see the result on our existing TV sets! Well done,
lad!

The programme was quite good this week ...
http://www.bbcworldnews.com/Pages/Pr...ure.aspx?id=18

Because he was showing the pictures on your own normal tv.
Its like the old colour snooker joke in a way.
The only reason, presumably, why we get more in using digital, is that every
pixel is not going to change on every channel at the same time. Thhus I
presume if that ever did happen it would be a mess,.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
wrote in message
...

"""So now we have Ultra HD, which provides a phenomenal 7,680 pixels
by 4,320. At the moment it is only available on enormous screens, but
it will eventually reach our televisions."""

I can remembe seeing a £12,000 widescreen TV in Dixon's in Marble Arch
(London) on display and being marvelled by it. Thankfully, better and
cheaper is the order of the day now.


Jeez, WTF's the point when they haven't got the bandwidth for SD, let
alone HD or UHD? Please, please, can we not just have uncompressed SD
for DTT?

Would that be called analogue? The main selling point of digital is
that it can be compressed to provide more space for channels.


Also, it seems that TV manufacturers' are still some 30 behind the
science of vision

Thirty what? Frogs? Big Macs? Eggs?


- Bruce Walker, Toshiba: "Because the human eye
and brain has something called persistence of vision, you can still
sometimes perceive a little lack of clarity in the image at 120 frames
a second."

Persistence of vision seems to work fine in the cinema with 24 frames
per second only.



Still, at least Chris Long managed to avoid the notorious and
hilarious gaff of Tomorrow's World in the 1980s:

"""The Japanese have already got a quite different hi-definition
system that's got 1125 lines. Now, as you can see, the pictures on
there are quite superb!"""

How is that a gaffe?

John

I think all these people should listen to Weird Al's Franks 10,000 inch TV
and hope it never happens.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"The dog from that film you saw" wrote in
message ...

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
Telly tech
Chris Long looks at the new TV technologies showcased at CES:
http://www.bbcworldnews.com/Pages/Pr...FeatureID=1019

"""So now we have Ultra HD, which provides a phenomenal 7,680 pixels
by 4,320. At the moment it is only available on enormous screens, but
it will eventually reach our televisions."""

Jeez, WTF's the point when they haven't got the bandwidth for SD, let
alone HD or UHD? Please, please, can we not just have uncompressed SD
for DTT?





for broadcast you're talking 20 years away for the uk at least - you can't
imagine how we will receive broadcasts by then or what we will be watching
them on.




--
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....

In article 39fefcd8-a64f-4cfb-9b44-
, wrote:
Persistence of vision seems to work fine in the cinema with 24 frames
per second only.

As long as each one is shown at least twice.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Yet discussions are in the are about HD over DTT, when already we only
receive 1-3% of the original SD signal. Would it not be better to
stop putting the cart before the horse and solve the bandwidth problem
first?

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:42:27 -0000, "The dog from that film you saw"
wrote:

for broadcast you're talking 20 years away for the uk at least - you can't
imagine how we will receive broadcasts by then or what we will be watching
them on.

The message
from "Brian Gaff" contains these words:

I think all these people should listen to Weird Al's Franks 10,000 inch TV
and hope it never happens.
Brian

Correction! It's:- Weird Al's "Frank's Two Thousand Inch TV"

--
Regards, John.

Please remove the "ohggcyht" before replying.
The address has been munged to reject Spam-bots.

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
m...
Because he was showing the pictures on your own normal tv.
Its like the old colour snooker joke in a way.

I regularly watched snooker in black and white. It really wasn't that
difficult. The black and white balls were obvious. The red balls were dark
grey and there were lots of them. The others you got to recognise, or
tracked them from their spots.

As to displaying the benefits of the new HD over an ordinary TV broadcast,
it's not completely ludicrous.

You get to know the degradation you might expect when a camera focuses on a
TV screen instead of real-life. Any deviation from expectations can be
detected (for example when film is used to simulate the display of an
on-screen TV). So it might be possible to appreciate some of the
differences. I seem to remember anyway that they showed close-ups of normal
and HD screen side-by-side.

--
Bartc